I am a Senior Political Contributor at Forbes and the official 'token lefty,' as the title of the page suggests. However, writing from the 'left of center' should not be confused with writing for the left as I often annoy progressives just as much as I upset conservative thinkers. In addition to the pages of Forbes.com, you can find me every Saturday morning on your TV arguing with my more conservative colleagues on "Forbes on Fox" on the Fox News Network and at various other times during the week serving as a liberal talking head on other Fox News and Fox Business Network shows. I also serve as a Democratic strategist with Mercury Public Affairs.

SCOTUS Poised To Take Next Step On the Road To Total Political Domination By The Wealthy?

The United States Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear the case that opens the door to the final destruction of the campaign finance laws that place a limit on how much money an individual can contribute directly to a federal candidate or national political party.

Now that the infamous Citizens United case, decided in 2010, has removed limits on how much a corporation, union and individual can contribute to groups that are ‘unaffiliated’ with candidates and political parties—leading to the creation and domination of the Super PAC—the Court, by agreeing to hear yet another challenge to campaign finance laws, is poised to take the next step toward finishing off all campaign limits by freeing individuals to give candidates and their political parties unlimited sums of money.

As the law currently stands for calendar years 2013-14, individual donors are limited to giving contributions to candidates for federal offices up to a maximum of $123,200 during an election cycle (two years) with a limit of $2,600 to an individual candidate, $32,400 to a national political party, $10,000 to a state political party and $5,000 to any other political committee affiliated with a candidate or political party.

However, an Alabama political donor—joined by the Republican National Committee—believes that the limitation of $123,200 placed on an individual donor during an election cycle is ‘unconstitutionally low’ and wants the highest court in the land to remove the cap.

The case now set to come before the Supreme Court will challenge only the total contribution cap and does not go after the limits placed on money given to individual candidates and political parties. However, based on the Court’s ruling in Citizens United, it is widely anticipated that were the Supreme Court to side with the plaintiffs in this matter and end the limits on the total contribution amount, the Court will have telegraphed its intention to do away with limitations of any kind or nature—making it only a matter of time until limits on individual contributions to candidates and political parties are also tossed into the dustbin of history.

While ending the existing limitation would put political parties on an even keel with the Super PACs in the race for big money, it would also mean the latest evisceration of the campaign finance limits put in place during the 1970’s when Congress reacted to the growing influence of money in politics—money that placed wealthy, individual donors in a position of undue influence over the nation’s elected officials.

The case that will now be heard by SCOTUS was argued last year in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit where a three judge panel ruled that the challenged campaign limit laws were, indeed, constitutional. In issuing the Circuit Court ruling, Judge Janice Rogers Brown noted that the Supreme Court had previously held that limiting an individual’s political contributions had only a marginal effect on that person’s freedom of speech and that it was within Congress’ authority to place such limits on individual contributions.

Judge Brown added, “Although we acknowledge the constitutional line between political speech and political contributions grows increasingly difficult to discern, we decline plaintiffs’ invitation to anticipate the Supreme Court’s agenda.”

The Supreme Court has now accepted that invitation, leading many experts to worry that the latest blow to campaign finance laws in about to descend.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

[The United States Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear the case that opens the door to the final destruction of the campaign finance laws that place a limit on how much money an individual can contribute directly to a federal candidate or national political party.]

Tim, the 2012 election reflected only the state of the art to date in election manipulation, by both money and voter suppression. Those manipulators are working today to perfect their methods. Count on it.

I think if in 2008 the question, “Would you allow the US Military to kill a US citizen who was working for a terrorist operation by using a drone strike instead of capturing him and making him stand trial”, both candidates would have said No we would see him brought to justice in court.

So you can see the perception on how a man would act as president was completely wrong compared to what that man did once elected.

So you can see, what a man says (or how you perceive him based on campaign marketing) on the campaign trail and what he does is completely different. So it really doesn’t matter NOW how much money someone spends. We don’t hold people to their character and how they market themselves once they become president.

The failure of the Republican party to make this an issue during Obama Reelection, was a massive failure on whoever was running the marketing campaign. A simple slogan by a P.A.C. “Do you want to re-elect a man who pisses on the US Constitution” would have caused some to think that maybe he does based on some people wanting to believe what they fear to be true.

In the case of Drones being used for the targeted assasination of Americans, you’re right. Neither candidate would have answered “yes”. As neither would A.) want that kind of bad press regardless of their actualy beliefs. And B.) had ever been in the position to make that kind of call.

You are also correct in stating that we do not hold our polititions accountable once elected as is proven by every elected official from both sides of the aisle.

However, to say that the Drone killings of the alleged American terrorists was unconstitutional is to miss a very important distinction of our “war on terror”. We treat acts of terror and potential acts of terror as acts of war, not crime. This policy started long before ’08 and has given our Presidents a very large “grey area” in which to opperate.

In no way do I condone this but untill we adressed this core princible, we will continue to see brutal displays of power that would otherwise be “unconstitutional”.

On a side note…do you remember a few years back when Obama wanted to close Guantanamo? He couldn’t though could he. In large part because no one State side would allow these prisoners into our jails. Those same people also condemed him for trying to house them in the few foreign countries willing to take them.

If the Supreme Court becomes less conservative on Obama’s watch, can a decision like this (if it occurs) potentially be undone? Grasping at straws as you can see. Rule by corporations is already the norm and I am disgusted. Add in rule by the Plutocracy and I despair.

I think I used Plutocracy wrong. Plutocracy as opposed to Democracy, right? Maybe I meant rule by the Plutocrats – wow that’s a word! Learn something new every day.

Anyway – for the court to reverse course on an item, there has to be a case which works its way up to the Supreme Court, right? You can’t just go back to an old case because you think the outcome might be different. So – it could be a long time to reverse a single item like this. Sigh.